There was a pretty good one in the lab next to mine at the National Physical Laboratory, several at Harwell in my undergraduate days, one or two in London hospitals, and very nearly a brilliant new one in Birmingham but I couldn't get any funding for it - the job went to Leiden instead. I'm designing a small neutron rig for a customer in Essex.

I've made a good living out of other people's gullibility, and hopefully one or two patients have absorbed enough of this juju bullshit to have survived for several years (though their tumors were probably imaginary too), but you obviously know better, so I'll revert to a respectful silence on the subject.

Links to articles and or abstract quotes only but where is the real scientific experiment with outcome which is not crafted to patch the failed model of atomic nucleus but an objective description of reality...

Chadwick was a student of Rutherford and would not dare to provide an objective interpretation of the experiments results...

Do you have any evidence to support the above statement? By evidence I mean letters to friends, relatives or colleagues; medical or psychological reports.Without such evidence your statement is logically flawed. You might have evidence that some dogs bite postmen, but to infer that all dogs, or a specific dog, bite postmen is false logic.

These 2 statements ("Should I believe in logical reasoning" and "or in what Wiki claims") are not mutually exclusive, did you decide to deliberately beg the question?.

In general Wiki is reasonably reliable and based on sound logic, particularly for a first introduction to a topic. Sometimes you will need to look to other sources if you wish to study a topic in depth, or pull together a number of separate topics in Wiki.I assume from your statement that you do not consider Wiki to be logical. However, it is difficult to judge whether you are correct as your responses are usually lacking in depth, as if you are avoiding a detailed discussion.You have, however, provided a document of which you say "This argumentation share my point of view on the hypothetical nucleus". Not only does this document not follow the format you have prescribed for other people's 'submissions' to you, it is a prime example of poor critical thinking. It shows significant confirmation bias by being very selective in the way it presents information. Take an example from early in the essay.

The author accuses physicists of considering many materials to be incompressible. It is true we all consider many elements and compounds to be relatively incompressible. After all, we can build bridges from steel and concrete which take considerable loads with minimal compression. However, it is unlikely that any physicist would consider these materials to be incompressible at the 100,000 atm and above as suggested by the author. If this were true the current theories of the sun, neutron stars, and our own earth's core would need to be rewritten. Interestingly the author has to dig back some 50yrs to find a reference which he thinks supports his assertion - why are none of the quoted references more recent than 1960?.It is also interesting that most of the experiments and discoveries in nuclear physics over the past 50 yrs are either ignored or misrepresented. Eg, sizes of ions compared to mother atoms conflict with his theory; spreading of energy bands in molecules is presented as being ignored by physicists whereas it is well known and an important part of quantum theory. Strangely, the author when quoting one reference says "..same textbook which gives us, on page 154, this conclusion based on up-to-date evidence .....". I say strangely, because the book giving the up to date evidence is dated 1955. Again, why are no recent texts quoted? We can only assume they do not support the author's preconceived ideas.

If this is an example of your method of argumentation it is not surprising that you are unable to understand the reasoning that lead Chadwick to his conclusions.

Are you going to continue with your blocking tactics, avoiding any meaningful discussion or are you prepared to present your alternative view of the atom, in the format you prescribe, with details of experiments that support your conclusions.We await your hypothetical theory.

« Last Edit: 10/10/2015 22:09:30 by Colin2B »

Logged

and the misguided shall lead the gullible, the feebleminded have inherited the earth.

I am only interested in progress based on discovery of properties of matter...Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time one puts together even the simplest atomic simulator, simulating molecule of Hydrogen...Means that we need to get back to lab and start from the scratch if we want to make a real progress...

I am only interested in progress based on discovery of properties of matter...Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time one puts together even the simplest atomic simulator, simulating molecule of Hydrogen...Means that we need to get back to lab and start from the scratch if we want to make a real progress...

In what ways do our atomic simulators fail in modeling hydrogen?

I collaborate with theoretical chemists who use commercially available (very expensive) software that can make very accurate predictions about collections of dozens or even hundreds of atoms using quantum-based algortihms. This can accurately predict not just the preferred molecular structures (which can be verified experimentally using x-ray crystallography or 2-dimesional NMR spectroscopy), but also how molecules vibrate (which can be verified experimentally by infrared and Raman spectroscopy), absorb/emit light (which can be verified experimentally with a UV-vis spectrometer), conduct electricity (guess what? this can also be verified experimentally, using devices that can actually experimentally measure the conductivity of a single molecule!)

They are even working on using computers to predict which molecules will be best at performing some function (the area still needs to make a lot of progress on this, in my opinion, but the fact that it even comes up with good suggestions at all is very promising given the rapid growth of our capabilities in this regard.

It's not easy to simulate these things, and it is not cheap. But saying that it "fails every time" is demonstrably false, and actually very far from the truth, as I see it. The only deliberate misinterpretation must be your own.

I am only interested in progress based on discovery of properties of matter...Unfortunately all evidence shows that assumed properties ware invented and then experiments tailored to support invented properties ware deliberately misinterpreted...Resulting in useless knowledge which fails every time one puts together even the simplest atomic simulator, simulating molecule of Hydrogen...Means that we need to get back to lab and start from the scratch if we want to make a real progress...

In what ways do our atomic simulators fail in modeling hydrogen?

I collaborate with theoretical chemists who use commercially available (very expensive) software that can make very accurate predictions about collections of dozens or even hundreds of atoms using quantum-based algortihms. This can accurately predict not just the preferred molecular structures (which can be verified experimentally using x-ray crystallography or 2-dimesional NMR spectroscopy), but also how molecules vibrate (which can be verified experimentally by infrared and Raman spectroscopy), absorb/emit light (which can be verified experimentally with a UV-vis spectrometer), conduct electricity (guess what? this can also be verified experimentally, using devices that can actually experimentally measure the conductivity of a single molecule!)

They are even working on using computers to predict which molecules will be best at performing some function (the area still needs to make a lot of progress on this, in my opinion, but the fact that it even comes up with good suggestions at all is very promising given the rapid growth of our capabilities in this regard.

It's not easy to simulate these things, and it is not cheap. But saying that it "fails every time" is demonstrably false, and actually very far from the truth, as I see it. The only deliberate misinterpretation must be your own.